"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

No, wait. Gunner had given me a link where the constitution really
*has* determined that a fetus is a human being, from conception.

Oh. Hang on. I seem to have misplaced it. :^)

Too bad. I'd really like to see that one. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:50:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the
established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof, of
the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress


Ed... not like you.. tell us the rest of the story.. and the details
of how this particular woman was chosen for the case?

Who cares? It was a Constitutional case. In order to get a Constitutional
issue settled, the interests that want the case heard often set up a
strawman. It's been that way for 200 years, Mike.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:25:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:50:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the
established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof, of
the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress


Ed... not like you.. tell us the rest of the story.. and the details
of how this particular woman was chosen for the case?

Who cares? It was a Constitutional case. In order to get a Constitutional
issue settled, the interests that want the case heard often set up a
strawman. It's been that way for 200 years, Mike.

Ed Huntress


So it was a straw man that made abortion legal?

And the left celebrates at the many lives spent over that straw man..?

But what if the vast right wing had a straw man?

What might it be Ed?

Now that Kerry is personally against abortion... what straw man deal
will he make with the left to get their vote?

Or perhaps he needs to make no deals... perhaps the Cliff-Glick
Syndrome is so rampant.. that the left will vote for Kerry no matter
what he believes... since the left cannot comprehend personal
decisions, personal accountability.... and are secure in coercion and
force and now straw men... to get their way...


Mike

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:19:59 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:23:42 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome stage 3: Denial and smugness

If by smugness you mean I am NOT going to follow in your footsteps *in
formation,* you're goddamn correct about that.

Deal with it.

Lg

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:25:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:50:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the
established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof,
of
the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress


Ed... not like you.. tell us the rest of the story.. and the details
of how this particular woman was chosen for the case?

Who cares? It was a Constitutional case. In order to get a Constitutional
issue settled, the interests that want the case heard often set up a
strawman. It's been that way for 200 years, Mike.

Ed Huntress


So it was a straw man that made abortion legal?

Abortion was already legal. It was the Texas legislature, acting in
violation of the Constitution, that tried to make it illegal.

Go back in history and check it out, Mike. The anti-abortion laws started
mostly in the 1870s, and they were never applicable to the majority. They
were enacted with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.

The way that Texas tried to defend its position is an indication that was
the case. Their argument was that the state had a compelling interest to
usurp a right -- the established right to life for the mother, and, after
the Griswold case, her right to privacy. But it was the violation of the
mother's right to life that was the weakness in Texas's legislation, and in
its case.


And the left celebrates at the many lives spent over that straw man..?

I have no idea. You'll have to ask the left.


But what if the vast right wing had a straw man?

What might it be Ed?

They did. It was the "compelling interest" of the state of Texas.


Now that Kerry is personally against abortion... what straw man deal
will he make with the left to get their vote?

You'll have to ask him.


Or perhaps he needs to make no deals... perhaps the Cliff-Glick
Syndrome is so rampant.. that the left will vote for Kerry no matter
what he believes... since the left cannot comprehend personal
decisions, personal accountability.... and are secure in coercion and
force and now straw men... to get their way...

It appears that you think the Bill of Rights is the "Cliff-Glick Syndrome."
Why is that?

Ed Huntress

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Sat, 03 Jul 2004 09:31:26 GMT on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:
On 2 Jul 2004 09:54:34 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Haploid cells do not spontaneously go into pathogenesis in human
species.

Actually they do. All you need is one each of male and female
versions in a dark room (station wagon would do in a pinch)
and allow the single most powerful force in nature to occur.

Jim


Thats not pathogenisis in a single gender. Thats called ****ing.

But if you do it in a research lab, it is a Class Four recombinant DNA
experiment. After all, the results are viable and able to reproduce.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:59:46 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:19:59 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:23:42 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome stage 3: Denial and smugness

If by smugness you mean I am NOT going to follow in your footsteps *in
formation,* you're goddamn correct about that.

Deal with it.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome bring out your bitterness?

God rub you the worng way?

snicker

Mike


Snibble's *Cliffs* itty bitty fibs and mo
Where you a real engineer at K&T or just a goffer sales/delivery guy?
How many post processors have you written for SmartCam Cliff?
What is the mathematical probability of a single cell entity mutating
into a four cell entity?
Provide a picture of an Atom.
Explain how over 300,000 employees became millionaires when UPS went
public when only 100,000 had stock?
Prove that God does not exist.
Which version of SmartCAm did you use to know so much about it's
abilities?
What Smartcam template files have you created or edited to understand
the code generation possibilities of Smart Cam?
What CAD/CAM system do you use on a daily, or weekly, ok monthly basis
to program with?
What is AIDS?
What is considered an AIDS death?
What causes AIDS?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:00:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:25:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:50:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the
established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof,
of
the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress


Ed... not like you.. tell us the rest of the story.. and the details
of how this particular woman was chosen for the case?

Who cares? It was a Constitutional case. In order to get a Constitutional
issue settled, the interests that want the case heard often set up a
strawman. It's been that way for 200 years, Mike.

Ed Huntress


So it was a straw man that made abortion legal?

Abortion was already legal. It was the Texas legislature, acting in
violation of the Constitution, that tried to make it illegal.

Go back in history and check it out, Mike. The anti-abortion laws started
mostly in the 1870s, and they were never applicable to the majority. They
were enacted with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.

The way that Texas tried to defend its position is an indication that was
the case. Their argument was that the state had a compelling interest to
usurp a right -- the established right to life for the mother, and, after
the Griswold case, her right to privacy. But it was the violation of the
mother's right to life that was the weakness in Texas's legislation, and in
its case.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:53:13 GMT, Friday wrote:

Actually, I didn't take a side. I only submitted that, even though I am
a Christian, the issue (in my mind anyway) should _NOT_ be debated on
the grounds of religious beliefs, but purely as an interpretation of
the Constitution. The only reason I didn't take a stand, I should add,
is that I'm quite honestly perplexed by the issue. I've been arguing
with myself for years about it.


Do you mean the federal constitution..?

The federal constitution was a compromise document that was written to
bring 13 states together... the state constitutions were very
religious in nature..... however, clever lawyers.... turned that
institution upside down to promote porn, immoral behavior and used it
to subvert and dismantle the state constitutions...

Freedom of speech was never about porn.. but addressing the government
with no fear of reprisal...

But the ASCLU and like minded reprobates.. used the federal
constitution to re-write th meaning.. to control the masses.... and to
establish the liberal regime that now controls our country..

but in typical paranoia.. the speak of the right wing.. etc etc.. when
in fact.. the reprobate has been dismantling the values and laws of
our country while whining that they are oppressed...

Cliff-Glick Syndrome #12: the liberal left and a pathological liar
are indistinguishable from each other.

Mike

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be
deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God
in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor,
under any pretence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of
worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any
person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes
or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any
other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the
maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he
believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged
himself to perform.
1776 New Jersey Constitution

It is the right as well as the Duty of all men in society,
publickly and at stated seasons to worship the
Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the
Universe. And no Subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained
in his person, Liberty or Estate, for worshipping God
in the manner and season most agreeable to the Dictates
of his own conscience, or for his religious profession
or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public
peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order
and preservation of a civil government, essentially
depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these
cannot be generally diffused through a Community, but
by the institution of the public Worship of God,
and of public instructions in piety, religion and
morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and
to secure the good order and preservation of their
government, the people of this Commonwealth have a
right to invest their legislature with power to authorize
and require, and the legislature shall, from time to
time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes,
precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies,
to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution
of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of
public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all
cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Well... looks like the left is going to implode...

For years we heard from the left and the communist of America.. that
they cared about a politicians personal opinions... so they refused to
accept anyone who would up hold the law of the state if he or she had
"personal opinions" that were in conflict...with the state.. or the
left.

Well now Kerry.. has a "personal opinion" that is in conflict with the
left, the communist, the reprobate, the god haters and the F.A.G.s..
so what will they do?

They willl do nothing..!!!!!!


Though the left and their ilk have bent over and kissed the ass of the
god or murder called abortion for thirty years.. they will keep their
mouth shut....

Why.. because their personal hatred of President Bush is far greater
than their personal beliefs about right and wrong!


Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

In the meanwhile... Snibbles... puts on his little blue stained Monaco
dress and dances with great delight feeling empowered as the US
continues to degrade and fall apart... and working that extra overtime
to scrach up a few bucks for the ACLU, NAMBLA and F.A.G.

Mike

The Lord himself has spoken,
and he will not revoke these words:
"Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone
are righteousness and strength.'"

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...

Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're
entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't be
used to usurp the Constitution.

However, Kerry has a perfect right to act on his own beliefs. That's what
the Roe v. Wade decision was all about. The next time he's pregnant, we'll
expect him to bring that fetus to term -- unless he's a hypocrite, of
course. And the same applies to George W. Bush. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:54:03 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:59:46 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:19:59 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:23:42 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome stage 3: Denial and smugness

If by smugness you mean I am NOT going to follow in your footsteps *in
formation,* you're goddamn correct about that.

Deal with it.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome bring out your bitterness?

No, rather your "nitwicity"
Your incapability to fathom the issue.

God rub you the worng way?

Whose god?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:07:06 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:53:13 GMT, Friday wrote:

Actually, I didn't take a side. I only submitted that, even though I am
a Christian, the issue (in my mind anyway) should _NOT_ be debated on
the grounds of religious beliefs, but purely as an interpretation of
the Constitution. The only reason I didn't take a stand, I should add,
is that I'm quite honestly perplexed by the issue. I've been arguing
with myself for years about it.


Do you mean the federal constitution..?

The federal constitution was a compromise document that was written to
bring 13 states together... the state constitutions were very
religious in nature

That was a material "mistake" for a Nation that is _supposed_ to
separate Church from State.

And I don't want to hear about any more GODDAMN PRAYER MEETINGS AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.

..... however, clever lawyers.... turned that
institution upside down to promote porn, immoral behavior and used it
to subvert and dismantle the state constitutions...

Freedom of speech was never about porn.. but addressing the government
with no fear of reprisal...

But the ASCLU and like minded reprobates.. used the federal
constitution to re-write th meaning.. to control the masses.... and to
establish the liberal regime that now controls our country..

And you.

but in typical paranoia.. the speak of the right wing.. etc etc.. when
in fact.. the reprobate has been dismantling the values and laws of
our country while whining that they are oppressed...

I am not repressed by any *outside* influences. Only internal ones,
and believe me, it has taken over 1/2 century for me to deprogram
myself.

Cliff-Glick Syndrome #12: the liberal left and a pathological liar
are indistinguishable from each other.

Take some more Thorazine. It will help you through the night.

Lg


Mike

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be
deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God
in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor,
under any pretence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of
worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any
person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes
or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any
other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the
maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he
believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged
himself to perform.
1776 New Jersey Constitution

It is the right as well as the Duty of all men in society,
publickly and at stated seasons to worship the
Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the
Universe. And no Subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained
in his person, Liberty or Estate, for worshipping God
in the manner and season most agreeable to the Dictates
of his own conscience, or for his religious profession
or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public
peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order
and preservation of a civil government, essentially
depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these
cannot be generally diffused through a Community, but
by the institution of the public Worship of God,
and of public instructions in piety, religion and
morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and
to secure the good order and preservation of their
government, the people of this Commonwealth have a
right to invest their legislature with power to authorize
and require, and the legislature shall, from time to
time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes,
precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies,
to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution
of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of
public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all
cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:29:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .

Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're
entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't be
used to usurp the Constitution.


No Ed.. you missed the point... the left runs for cover when a
conservative expresses personal opinions that are not in agreement
with the law of the land... or the ever changing applications of the
constitutions..

How many judges and politicians have been "assaulted" by the left for
their "persona"l views on abotion??



But when one of their own... "personally" believe abortion is
murder... they aren't concerned...?!?

because their hatred of President Bush is greater than any principles
they might hold....

Will Kerry act on his "personal:" opinions?

Or will the left forgive him.. because even giving up their baby
murdering ways... would be better than President Bush getting
reelected?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0425-01.htm

Will these supporters of Kerry riot again.. now that Kerry has
expressed a view that is contrary to law and the constitution of his
financial supporters and voters?

What a predicament the left is in... when protestors use Kerry posters
to protest the murder of babies... will the left drool and pull out
their hair as they tear down and burn posters of Kerry's statement
that abortion is murder? Or maybe he is like former President
Clinton... and speaks with a forked tongue... perhaps Kerry personally
believes abortion is wrong but the killing of the babies is not
murder... its just a bad choice.

But then again.. if abortion had been legal and available.. Clinton's
poor mother.. might have made a choice to dispose of Billy... oh how
different the world would be today.. I guess the left just doesn't
see that consequences of their actions...


Mike

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:29:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .

Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're
entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't be
used to usurp the Constitution.


Why are you concerned about the constitution?

You yourself alreaday admitted the whole argument was a strawmen.


Abortion was against the law in Texas since 1850....

but then.. maybe abortion isn't so bad after all.. Killing all those
babies left the US with 40,000,000 less Democrats.


Mike

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:43:57 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:54:03 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:59:46 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:19:59 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:23:42 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome stage 3: Denial and smugness

If by smugness you mean I am NOT going to follow in your footsteps *in
formation,* you're goddamn correct about that.

Deal with it.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome bring out your bitterness?

No, rather your "nitwicity"
Your incapability to fathom the issue.

God rub you the worng way?

Whose god?


Why your god...of course.... the god of you mind that feeds your
bitterness... your anger... you mindless accusations of the mental
state of America.... I guess you breed and live on the assumption
that everyone is as trapped... snared.. and as brain dead as you
are...

You are the typical member of F.A.G.

You exhaust yourself fighting against something you say does not
exist... does not effect you... yes like a slobbering dog frothing
at the mouth from rabies... rant and rave... against something that
doesn't exist... LOL...

Are you sane man?

Have you lost your mind?


If you can have a moment of clarity.. shut up.. and be gone as though
you have nothing to prove... I mean if God does not exist.. why fight,
why abuse yourself attempting to defend your insanity...

scurry away and live you life... If God does not exist..

Save your words to encouraged and strengthen your fellow F.A.G.s

Mike


Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

Do you mean the federal constitution..?

The federal constitution was a compromise document that was written to
bring 13 states together... the state constitutions were very
religious in nature

That was a material "mistake" for a Nation that is _supposed_ to
separate Church from State.

Have you ever read the state constitutions that the federal
constitution was in harmony with?

You mindless sheeple are all the same... like a heard of little stink
flies... always together, one mind, living on animal instinct, always
looking for a fresh new pile of dung............

Try and think for yourself.. free yourself.. free your mind..

I'm just kidding.. I know you can't think for yourself..

Mike

Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:29:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .

Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're
entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't
be
used to usurp the Constitution.


No Ed.. you missed the point... the left runs for cover when a
conservative expresses personal opinions that are not in agreement
with the law of the land... or the ever changing applications of the
constitutions..

Hmm. I don't see anybody running for cover, Mike. In fact, this thread and
related threads about abortion seem to be generating quite a bit of
assertive argument.


How many judges and politicians have been "assaulted" by the left for
their "persona"l views on abotion??

I have no idea. How many? Have they shot anybody yet, like the pro-lifers
have?


But when one of their own... "personally" believe abortion is
murder... they aren't concerned...?!?

Did he say it was murder, or that he just opposes it? Did he say he would
try to undermine the Constitution or the Court? If he did, then I would be
concerned myself.


because their hatred of President Bush is greater than any principles
they might hold....

Well, I think that most of the people who plan to vote not-for-Bush don't
hate the guy. They just think he's not up to the job. He's kind of a boob
who's gotten the US into several serious messes. But I'll bet he's a lot of
fun at a party. He'd be the one wearing the lampshade and offering to drive
people home as he tripped over his own feet.


Will Kerry act on his "personal:" opinions?

I don't know. What do you think? Do you think he'll try to load the Court
with conservatives, maybe? g


Or will the left forgive him.. because even giving up their baby
murdering ways... would be better than President Bush getting
reelected?

You'll have to ask them, Mike.

Will these supporters of Kerry riot again.. now that Kerry has
expressed a view that is contrary to law and the constitution of his
financial supporters and voters?

What constitution is that? Do you mean the Constitution of the United
States?


What a predicament the left is in... when protestors use Kerry posters
to protest the murder of babies... will the left drool and pull out
their hair as they tear down and burn posters of Kerry's statement
that abortion is murder? Or maybe he is like former President
Clinton... and speaks with a forked tongue... perhaps Kerry personally
believes abortion is wrong but the killing of the babies is not
murder... its just a bad choice.

They probably will accept the fact that he has a different opinion on this
issue. In general, they tend to care more about how a person behaves than
what he thinks. That's a difference between the left and the right. The
right cares a great deal about what you think, and it had better be
something they approve.


But then again.. if abortion had been legal and available.. Clinton's
poor mother.. might have made a choice to dispose of Billy... oh how
different the world would be today.. I guess the left just doesn't
see that consequences of their actions...

Sorry, Mike. Abortion prior to viabliltiy was legal in Arkansas until 1969.
I guess she just decided she wanted him. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

And I don't want to hear about any more GODDAMN PRAYER MEETINGS AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.


I'm glad you say that... could you say it a little louder... maybe
God is in Africa and can't hear you? Maybe he is in the third heavens
and your words are slow... LOL

Of course you object... you object to the individual rights of
humans... of course you object..

You are a sheeple.. you have a herd mentality... you have a mind of a
animal... herd instincts.. the collective... not the individual...

But that is ok... in America.. we have a place for all..


Cliff-Glick Syndreom is contagious.. so the good news is.. you can
infect many.... so keep on fighting the good fight.. keep on
ranting and raving... keeping making a big fuss... that way many
will see your insanity and the stupidity of you mind.....

Glick.. says no God.. then spends all this time ... about what..
something that doesn't exist??

Is that insanity?

Man have you lost it?

Mike

Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:53:13 GMT, Friday wrote:

My moral beliefs on the issue are quite clear to me, but I wouldn't
impose them on anyone else. THAT would be unConstitutional. As well as
MORALLY wrong.

So you have no problem with Jim getting ****ed off at his minor
daughter and putting a bullet through her skull simply because she was
inconvenient? Or should I say..you wouldn't try to impose your will on
him in trying to stop him because to do so, would not be moral?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:48:25 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

Cliff-Glick Syndrome bring out your bitterness?

No, rather your "nitwicity"
Your incapability to fathom the issue.

God rub you the worng way?

Whose god?


Why your god...of course

Which one of the 3,478 gods are we referring to here, specifically.

.... the god of you mind that feeds your
bitterness... your anger... you mindless accusations of the mental
state of America

The mental state of America is ****ED UP. I can tell you _that_.
You will find FEW that will disagree with me. Seems like you are in a
minority on this one, bud.

.... I guess you breed and live on the assumption
that everyone is as trapped... snared.. and as brain dead as you
are...

Ah, not at all. The one's that I find that are trapped, I try to set
free. Snared, same thing.
You think I am brain dead, accuse me of being brain dead, when you
haven't even YET comprehended the thesis of this discussion.

You are the typical member of F.A.G.

You exhaust yourself fighting against something you say does not
exist...

Did I ever suggest that some Higher Entity doesn't exist? Please
point out chapter and verse. In fact, post the post.

In fact, I am even willing to posit that YOU might exist. And if a
****bird like yourself can exist, certainly higher life forms from
which you derive must also exist.

What I am against, is the endless horse**** that passes itself off as
Religion, and ensnares and takes-over the minds of the followers. At
that point, you are finished for Life, unless you make enormous
efforts to clean the **** out of your brains before it is too late.

does not effect you...

Not anymore. But it was a loooong hard fight to recover _myself_. My
inner being.

yes like a slobbering dog frothing
at the mouth from rabies... rant and rave... against something that
doesn't exist... LOL...

Prove, that God exists, and I will **** you a Golden Egg.

Are you sane man?

Have you lost your mind?

Not according to my handlers.

If you can have a moment of clarity.. shut up.. and be gone as though
you have nothing to prove... I mean if God does not exist.. why fight,
why abuse yourself attempting to defend your insanity...

Wiggling on the line, Fish? You're still *hooked* but good, hook line
and sinker. Pretty soon the rod itself.

scurry away and live you life... If God does not exist..

I'll go where I choose to go, when I choose to do so. I don't
need/require your permission.

Save your words to encouraged and strengthen your fellow F.A.G.s

So it shall be done.
You've just revealed to me how weak your foundation of *belief* is,
and that's OK. It should be weak. It's built on a house of cards.

Mike

Lg

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:00:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Go back in history and check it out, Mike. The anti-abortion laws started
mostly in the 1870s, and they were never applicable to the majority. They
were enacted with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.

No Constitutional authority? Since when did that ever stop a
politician?

Speed limits mentioned in the Constitution? Gun Control? Smoking
dope?

I dont believe you actually made that statement.......blink blink....

And then we have "all other powers shall be left to the states or the
people"

I seem to have seen that in one of the Amendments somewhere....

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:52:31 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

Do you mean the federal constitution..?

The federal constitution was a compromise document that was written to
bring 13 states together... the state constitutions were very
religious in nature

That was a material "mistake" for a Nation that is _supposed_ to
separate Church from State.

Have you ever read the state constitutions that the federal
constitution was in harmony with?

You mindless sheeple are all the same... like a heard of little stink
flies... always together, one mind, living on animal instinct, always
looking for a fresh new pile of dung............

I was just thinking the same thing about you Religious Fanatics, and
all the pain and suffering you have brought into the world. Do
humanity a favor and cut your own throats. We don't have enough
knives to pass around at the moment.

Try and think for yourself.. free yourself.. free your mind..

I'm just kidding.. I know you can't think for yourself..

Mike

You know nothing.
That seems to be the trouble.

Oh you BELIEVE all kinds of crap, but in fact, you -know- very little.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:57:04 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

And I don't want to hear about any more GODDAMN PRAYER MEETINGS AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.


I'm glad you say that... could you say it a little louder... maybe
God is in Africa and can't hear you? Maybe he is in the third heavens
and your words are slow... LOL

Of course you object... you object to the individual rights of
humans... of course you object..

It is AGAINST THE LAW. Government enforced/ sanctioned, biased (
Christian Prayer ) in Government is AGAINST THE LAW.

I have no doubt, that one went CLEAR over your head also. In fact, I
feel a little like William Tell aiming for the apple on your head,
except in this case, the apple IS your head.

You are a sheeple.. you have a herd mentality... you have a mind of a
animal... herd instincts.. the collective... not the individual...

Cite? Or is this more of your *programming* coming to your defense.

Nothing, in fact, could be further than the truth. Which means, you
are simply mistaken, obscuring the facts, or lying through your
keyboard. The net result is, null and void in all circumstances.

But that is ok... in America.. we have a place for all..

Cliff-Glick Syndreom is contagious.. so the good news is.. you can
infect many.... so keep on fighting the good fight.. keep on
ranting and raving... keeping making a big fuss... that way many
will see your insanity and the stupidity of you mind.....

I quite think it is the other way around........

Glick.. says no God.. then spends all this time ... about what..
something that doesn't exist??

Prove to me there IS a god, and I will **** you a golden egg.

Is that insanity?

Man have you lost it?

Mike

You're ****ed, Mike.
I think I'm gonna just have to write you off as a lost one. Happens a
lot, so you have lots of company.

Lg

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:57:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Sorry, Mike. Abortion prior to viabliltiy was legal in Arkansas until 1969.
I guess she just decided she wanted him. g


Nice try Ed...



In 1967 Colorado and California legalized abortion. By June, 1970,
when the State of New York passed the first Abortion on Demand Law
(24-week limit), it be-came the 16th state to allow abortion. Due to
an extremely loose interpretation of "mental health," California also
had defacto abortion-on-demand. Alaska and Hawaii had liberal laws.
Laws in the other 12 states, which included Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia, were very restrictive,
typically allowing abortion only for pregnancies due to assault rape,
incest and life of the mother as well as for severe fetal handicap.


http://www.pennlife.org/docs/abort_history.html


Not like you to be so ill informed.




Mike

Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:11:50 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:48:25 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

Cliff-Glick Syndrome bring out your bitterness?

No, rather your "nitwicity"
Your incapability to fathom the issue.

God rub you the worng way?

Whose god?


Why your god...of course

Which one of the 3,478 gods are we referring to here, specifically.

.... the god of you mind that feeds your
bitterness... your anger... you mindless accusations of the mental
state of America

The mental state of America is ****ED UP. I can tell you _that_.
You will find FEW that will disagree with me. Seems like you are in a
minority on this one, bud.

.... I guess you breed and live on the assumption
that everyone is as trapped... snared.. and as brain dead as you
are...

Ah, not at all. The one's that I find that are trapped, I try to set
free. Snared, same thing.
You think I am brain dead, accuse me of being brain dead, when you
haven't even YET comprehended the thesis of this discussion.

You are the typical member of F.A.G.

You exhaust yourself fighting against something you say does not
exist...

Did I ever suggest that some Higher Entity doesn't exist? Please
point out chapter and verse. In fact, post the post.

In fact, I am even willing to posit that YOU might exist. And if a
****bird like yourself can exist, certainly higher life forms from
which you derive must also exist.

What I am against, is the endless horse**** that passes itself off as
Religion, and ensnares and takes-over the minds of the followers. At
that point, you are finished for Life, unless you make enormous
efforts to clean the **** out of your brains before it is too late.

does not effect you...

Not anymore. But it was a loooong hard fight to recover _myself_. My
inner being.

yes like a slobbering dog frothing
at the mouth from rabies... rant and rave... against something that
doesn't exist... LOL...

Prove, that God exists, and I will **** you a Golden Egg.

Are you sane man?

Have you lost your mind?

Not according to my handlers.

If you can have a moment of clarity.. shut up.. and be gone as though
you have nothing to prove... I mean if God does not exist.. why fight,
why abuse yourself attempting to defend your insanity...

Wiggling on the line, Fish? You're still *hooked* but good, hook line
and sinker. Pretty soon the rod itself.

scurry away and live you life... If God does not exist..

I'll go where I choose to go, when I choose to do so. I don't
need/require your permission.

Save your words to encouraged and strengthen your fellow F.A.G.s

So it shall be done.
You've just revealed to me how weak your foundation of *belief* is,
and that's OK. It should be weak. It's built on a house of cards.

Mike

Lg

Are you shadow boxing?

Try harder... I have a side bet as to how many times you will post to
defend your insanity..


Keep on spending your energy attacking something you don't believe is
real!!!


Looks like you have a full blown case of Cliff-Glick Syndrome.

Four more post.s.. and you win a silver star for effort.

Mike


PS.. I can get you a discount F.A.G. membership..comes with a little
gold bracelet.

Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:13:47 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:00:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Go back in history and check it out, Mike. The anti-abortion laws started
mostly in the 1870s, and they were never applicable to the majority. They
were enacted with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.

No Constitutional authority? Since when did that ever stop a
politician?

Speed limits mentioned in the Constitution? Gun Control? Smoking
dope?

I dont believe you actually made that statement.......blink blink....

And then we have "all other powers shall be left to the states or the
people"

I seem to have seen that in one of the Amendments somewhere....

Gunner



Gunner.. I don't know what happened to Ed.. he is normally better
informed.... must of woke up in the middle of the night.. still hung
over from party.. etc.. and just wasn't awake...

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt...


Mike

Ken Davey wrote:

snip

A very interesting exercise;
The next time one of the 'representatives' of (insert the religious
organization de-jour) knocks on your door invite him to expound on his/her
ideas - *but* - forbid any book reference (bible, koran or whatever - this
includes quoting the 'profits' unless said quote was obtained first-hand ).
Any such reference will be cause for ending the session.
I guarantee the interview will be over in seconds!
Regards.
Ken.


What do you get when you cross a Hell's Angel with a Jehova's Witness?
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

..
..
..
Someone who knocks on your door and tells YOU to "F**k Off"!!

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:13:52 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:52:31 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

Do you mean the federal constitution..?

The federal constitution was a compromise document that was written to
bring 13 states together... the state constitutions were very
religious in nature

That was a material "mistake" for a Nation that is _supposed_ to
separate Church from State.

Have you ever read the state constitutions that the federal
constitution was in harmony with?

You mindless sheeple are all the same... like a heard of little stink
flies... always together, one mind, living on animal instinct, always
looking for a fresh new pile of dung............

I was just thinking the same thing about you Religious Fanatics, and
all the pain and suffering you have brought into the world. Do
humanity a favor and cut your own throats. We don't have enough
knives to pass around at the moment.

Try and think for yourself.. free yourself.. free your mind..

I'm just kidding.. I know you can't think for yourself..

Mike

You know nothing.
That seems to be the trouble.

Oh you BELIEVE all kinds of crap, but in fact, you -know- very little.


Inform us..

HOw many have died from religous wars?

How many died from Secular Wars.?

How many died at the hands of Religious Countries?

How many died at the hands of Secluar Countries?

How many died from Protestant Wars?

How many died from Muslem Wars?

How many died from Jewish Wars?

How many died from Baptist wars?

How many died from Methodist wars?

How many died from Mormon wars?

Hurry Scurry... break away from your sheeple mentality..a nd think
for yourself.. and annoucne to the whole worlds... who has killed the
most people...

Those fihgting in the name of God.. or those fighting in the name of a
country?


Mike

Join F.A.G. today.... Folks Against God ... and age old order of the
insane and mentally challenged... spending their life attempting to
argue about something they do not even believe exist.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:18:23 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:57:04 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:48:36 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

And I don't want to hear about any more GODDAMN PRAYER MEETINGS AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.


I'm glad you say that... could you say it a little louder... maybe
God is in Africa and can't hear you? Maybe he is in the third heavens
and your words are slow... LOL

Of course you object... you object to the individual rights of
humans... of course you object..

It is AGAINST THE LAW. Government enforced/ sanctioned, biased (
Christian Prayer ) in Government is AGAINST THE LAW.


XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be
deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God
in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor,
under any pretence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of
worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any
person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes
or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any
other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the
maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he
believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged
himself to perform.
1776 New Jersey Constitution

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:29:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .

Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like
abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

So the beat goes own as the liars and the scourge of the left... defy
their own princibles.. in the name of hate... to unseat President
Bush..

Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're
entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't
be
used to usurp the Constitution.


Why are you concerned about the constitution?

I happen to think very highly of it.


You yourself alreaday admitted the whole argument was a strawmen.

No, the argument isn't about strawmen. You just need strawmen, sometimes, to
get a case heard.

The biggest problem with getting big cases heard before the Supreme Court is
finding someone who has standing and who also has a beef, who happens to
have broken the right law. So it's pretty common for someone who has the
standing and the beef to break a law as civil disobedience. There are a few
such cases in Supreme Court history. The NRA has been looking for one for
years, for example, but they've had a big problem with the standing issue.


Abortion was against the law in Texas since 1850....

The law was first enacted in 1854, then amended twice to it's essentially
final form in 1859. Unlike most of the state laws enacted in agreement with
common law before that time, which is to say most state laws regarding
abortion, it didn't distinguish between early-term and later-term
("after-quickening") abortions.

It appears not to have been challenged to the federal courts until Roe. When
Roe challenged it, it fell on Constitutional grounds.

However, even the Texas law faced an internal, fatal flaw. Like most other
anti-abortion laws, it allowed abortions in which the life of the mother
would be threatened by birth. So they already had decided on a moral
calculus that put the mothers' lives ahead of that of their unborn. Once
you've made that decision that one life is worth more than another, or to
sacrifice one life for the sake of another under law, you've diminished the
status of the first life. In fact, the legal question has never been one of
life or not life, it's been one of the point in development at which one
entity acquires the right to life. Which, under the US Constitution, is
based upon acquiring the right to due process under two different
amendments. You can look up which ones if you're interested. g


but then.. maybe abortion isn't so bad after all.. Killing all those
babies left the US with 40,000,000 less Democrats.

There ya' go. There's the moral posture of the anti-rights crowd in a
nutshell. It's Ok to abort a fetus as long as it might be one of your
political opponents.

Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to
kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political
party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born?

That's being a *real* pro-lifer. You shouldn't have any moral problem with
that, right?

Ed Huntress

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:57:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Sorry, Mike. Abortion prior to viabliltiy was legal in Arkansas until
1969.
I guess she just decided she wanted him. g


Nice try Ed...



In 1967 Colorado and California legalized abortion. By June, 1970,
when the State of New York passed the first Abortion on Demand Law
(24-week limit), it be-came the 16th state to allow abortion. Due to
an extremely loose interpretation of "mental health," California also
had defacto abortion-on-demand. Alaska and Hawaii had liberal laws.
Laws in the other 12 states, which included Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia, were very restrictive,
typically allowing abortion only for pregnancies due to assault rape,
incest and life of the mother as well as for severe fetal handicap.


http://www.pennlife.org/docs/abort_history.html


Not like you to be so ill informed.

As I said, *before 1969*. What you've quoted above refers to the laws as of
1970. That's for a good reason, if you actually read the Arkansas law.

It's online. I'm sure you can find it. g

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:18:23 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I'm glad you say that... could you say it a little louder... maybe
God is in Africa and can't hear you? Maybe he is in the third heavens
and your words are slow... LOL

Of course you object... you object to the individual rights of
humans... of course you object..

It is AGAINST THE LAW. Government enforced/ sanctioned, biased (
Christian Prayer ) in Government is AGAINST THE LAW.

I have no doubt, that one went CLEAR over your head also. In fact, I
feel a little like William Tell aiming for the apple on your head,
except in this case, the apple IS your head.


What is against the law Glick?

In Ca public schools Islam is required teaching in 7th and 8 grade.
State law.

You must be confused.... again..


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united
States of America, When in the Course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them
to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Have you read anything other then what the left spoon feeds you?

MIke

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:45:54 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:18:23 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I'm glad you say that... could you say it a little louder... maybe
God is in Africa and can't hear you? Maybe he is in the third heavens
and your words are slow... LOL

Of course you object... you object to the individual rights of
humans... of course you object..

It is AGAINST THE LAW. Government enforced/ sanctioned, biased (
Christian Prayer ) in Government is AGAINST THE LAW.

I have no doubt, that one went CLEAR over your head also. In fact, I
feel a little like William Tell aiming for the apple on your head,
except in this case, the apple IS your head.


What is against the law Glick?

In Ca public schools Islam is required teaching in 7th and 8 grade.
State law.

If that is true, then America, especially California, needs to be
burned to the ground so we all can Start Over.

You must be confused.... again..

Hardly ever.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united
States of America, When in the Course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them
to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Have you read anything other then what the left spoon feeds you?

MIke

You've just regurgitated what has been spoon fed to YOU, and you can't
even see the vomit all over your own shirt.

Lost little boy. No consequence to me.
Otoh, there are people who mean something to me, who are important to
me, that I care about, and I will stop at nothing to ensure their
health, happiness and tranquility, regardless of the measure of
personal sacrifice.

You do _not_ fall into that category. What happens to you means
nothing to me.

Lg

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:18:23 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

You're ****ed, Mike.
I think I'm gonna just have to write you off as a lost one. Happens a
lot, so you have lots of company.

Lg

I had rather pray for you... pray that God shows you mercy and deliver
you from the power or darkness... from you anger... from your
rebellion... who knows his will concerning you... perhaps he will
save you... perhaps he will reject you...


... your a typical leftist.. control freak.. you can't stand
independent thought... everyone must conform... you throw your
tantrums... scream, curse... you just can't deal with anything that
doesn't conform to your distorted views of reality or history.. or
anything else for that matter..


You would really upset if you read the state constitutions that
required building churches in each community so that all could
exercise their duty to worship God..

Priest seduce you.. or have his way with you when you were young..
and now you are bitter... angry? Emotionally abandoned as a child..
feel let down by God... your pet puppy get run over when you were a
child ... and you are still mad a God?


Mike

The Lord himself has spoken,
and he will not revoke these words:
"Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone
are righteousness and strength.'"

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:41:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


but then.. maybe abortion isn't so bad after all.. Killing all those
babies left the US with 40,000,000 less Democrats.

There ya' go. There's the moral posture of the anti-rights crowd in a
nutshell. It's Ok to abort a fetus as long as it might be one of your
political opponents.

Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to
kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political
party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born?

That's being a *real* pro-lifer. You shouldn't have any moral problem with
that, right?

Ed Huntress


So you are trying to turn your approval of killing babies into me
killling people because of their political party... ?? Are you that
desperate?

Don't post this around an open flame.. your strawmen is dangerous...

Let's see... the left builds a strawman to murder 40,00,000 people..
and all you see is a way to turn it into adult genocide..??

You build strawmen as well as the left.... You don't think fetuses
are babies.. so you kill them... next as you think less and less of
human life.. you do what.. kill the old folks... then you kill the
sick.. then you kill the weak... then you kill the poor... is that
where you are going Ed?

Mike

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:45:41 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 04:57:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Sorry, Mike. Abortion prior to viabliltiy was legal in Arkansas until
1969.
I guess she just decided she wanted him. g


Nice try Ed...



In 1967 Colorado and California legalized abortion. By June, 1970,
when the State of New York passed the first Abortion on Demand Law
(24-week limit), it be-came the 16th state to allow abortion. Due to
an extremely loose interpretation of "mental health," California also
had defacto abortion-on-demand. Alaska and Hawaii had liberal laws.
Laws in the other 12 states, which included Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia, were very restrictive,
typically allowing abortion only for pregnancies due to assault rape,
incest and life of the mother as well as for severe fetal handicap.


http://www.pennlife.org/docs/abort_history.html


Not like you to be so ill informed.

As I said, *before 1969*. What you've quoted above refers to the laws as of
1970. That's for a good reason, if you actually read the Arkansas law.

It's online. I'm sure you can find it. g

Ed Huntress


the point you made was that Clinton could have been aborted because
abortions were easily availble... they were not... they were only
sometimes available for rape, incest, and the mother's health... the
laws until the 1930-60 were still based on old common laws.. and
abortion was considered murder... and the technical issues of
performing them..e tc..

So in otherwords... the possiblity exist that president Clinton might
not be here if abortions were as easy then as now.. I mean.. knocked
up young mother, white.. no fatther... one nighter.. *******
child.. ... Planned Parenthood.. would of gotten that one!!

And no President Clinton...

Funny how the left supports so many moral decisions and laws.. that
would put their very existence into jeopardy...

Mike

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:55:13 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:18:23 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

You're ****ed, Mike.
I think I'm gonna just have to write you off as a lost one. Happens a
lot, so you have lots of company.

Lg

I had rather pray for you... pray that God shows you mercy and deliver
you from the power or darkness... from you anger... from your
rebellion... who knows his will concerning you... perhaps he will
save you... perhaps he will reject you...

I hope I'm given better treatment than the 6 million Jews that were
marched into the Death Camps.

.. your a typical leftist.. control freak.. you can't stand
independent thought... everyone must conform

Here, right here, any psychologist/psychiatrist would say you are
Projecting.

... you throw your
tantrums... scream, curse... you just can't deal with anything that
doesn't conform to your distorted views of reality or history.. or
anything else for that matter..

I don't buy into your CRAP if that's what you're getting at.

You would really upset if you read the state constitutions that
required building churches in each community so that all could
exercise their duty to worship God..

DUTY TO WORSHIP GOD.
**** that.
I have no "duty" to do a goddamn thing other than to eat and ****, and
hopefully **** every now and then.

Priest seduce you.. or have his way with you when you were young..
and now you are bitter... angry? Emotionally abandoned as a child..
feel let down by God... your pet puppy get run over when you were a
child ... and you are still mad a God?

Life is hard for everyone. You would deny this truth also?
Some people find comfort in Religion, the panacea of the Masses.
Some find it in a bottle.
Me? I just feel the raw pain, and live with it. Life is a bitch, and
then you die.

Mike

The Lord himself has spoken,
and he will not revoke these words:
"Before me every knee will bow;

not mine, bubba

by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone
are righteousness and strength.'"

More bull****. Righteousness and strength are HUMAN characteristics.

A psychologist/psychiatrist might say you are simply regurgitating
your indoctination lessons.

Prove to me there is a God, and I will **** you TWO golden eggs.

Lg

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:55:06 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

In Ca public schools Islam is required teaching in 7th and 8 grade.
State law.

If that is true, then America, especially California, needs to be
burned to the ground so we all can Start Over.


It is true you idiot.. just went through the high courts.... ...

But I am glad you admitted your true feelings... the reprobate God
haters.. always want to kill... to get their way...

Always violence... and just minutes ago.. you were going to blame the
saints for war and violence... when it is YOU who is violent.. it is
YOU who is full of hatred...... it is YOU who wants to murder....


Mike

The Lord himself has spoken,
and he will not revoke these words:
"Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone
are righteousness and strength.'"

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:41:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to
kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political
party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born?

Thanks for making my case Ed.

Though to be fair..abortion of Democrat babies would fall under the
clause of badly damaged fetus's so it might be considered a moral and
humane thing.

Gunner, Pro Choice.
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell